Philosophydiscuss Response to scientific anti-realism in the Apologetics Forum forums; Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?
By the ...

Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.

In a very general way, I'd say the first statement shows that someone understands what science is. After all, if you define science as the systematic study of the observable, then you have to acknowledge that it doesn't address the unobservable.

The caveat is that people differ on what they mean by "observable." For instance, many observations are made by inference: There is a fresh hole in a target and there was a loud bang. Someone is holding a smoking gun in the near vicinity. It would be fair to say that those observations support an inference that the hole was made by shooting a gun.

Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.

2 Questions:
1)Does there need to be a response?
2)Which level of know is being implied?

If you want to refute it, then there needs to be a response.

I'm not sure which level of know is being implied.

Okay, my question then is why do you think it needs to be refuted? Remember scientific anti-realism does not say that unobservable parts of reality cannot be known, just that they cannot be known through the methods of science.

As an aside, presuppositional apologetics goes very closely with scientific anti-realism.

2 Questions:
1)Does there need to be a response?
2)Which level of know is being implied?

If you want to refute it, then there needs to be a response.

I'm not sure which level of know is being implied.

Okay, my question then is why do you think it needs to be refuted? Remember scientific anti-realism does not say that unobservable parts of reality cannot be known, just that they cannot be known through the methods of science.

As an aside, presuppositional apologetics goes very closely with scientific anti-realism.

CT

I'm trying to figure out whether or not scientific anti-realism is true. I'm familiar with the arguments in favor of scientific anti-realism. I would like to know about the arguments that are against it.

Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.

Scientific anti-realism is in accord with the scientific method. Scientific realism is not. I would say that scientific anti-realism is science while scientific realism is an attempt by man to play God.

Chris Thomas | Grace Reformed Baptist Church | Bonham, TX

Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam!
So if ye destroy the Letter of the Scripture, you do destroy the Scripture; and if you do deny the Letter, how is it possible that you should attain to the true sense thereof, when the Sense lies wrapped up in the Letters, and the words thereof?Samuel Rutherford - A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of ConscienceBlog: The Biblical Thinker